As in the case of Gambotto in Australia, in a number of cases, the courts have taken cognizance to the fact that even if the plaintiff does not request for the two tests, the courts may and can subject the amendment to these tests and see to their fitment to the same. Failing which in either of the cases, the amendments may be nullified. The proprietary rights of the shareholders have to be upheld but not at the cost of the company according to the British Law, in contrast to the Australian perception of the matter.
Exercising of the majority powers by the shareholders of a company is pretty rampant in the country. It is with utmost care and interest that the courts need to implement these laws so that the suppression of the shareholding minorities is protected and at the same time, the objectives of the company are not diluted. However, the point raised in the indicated quote is to ensure that the interest of both the minorities and that of the company should also be protected. In the name of protecting the interest of the minorities, the company should not be ending up as a loser in the game thereby, bringing down the interests of the rest of the shareholders of the company.
In order to understand this, the idea of proprietary rights being protected has to be analyzed. Proprietary rights in most cases have been the ownership rights or the right to own. In cases related to owning land or building there had not been contentions on the proprietary rights of a person and what is offered to one person is same as the other one3. Whereas in the case of shareholder proprietary rights, the minority shareholders rights might be different from what the majority shareholder might have. The association of the company could be for one simple reason that of the company making more profits or as high a profit as is legitimately possible.